[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13215-13220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it was approximately a year ago, in fact I 
think it was better than a year ago now, that myself, a number of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), and, of course, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) took to the floor to express our concerns about what was 
transpiring in the Middle East, with a special focus on Iraq. We have 
done that on a rather regular basis over the course of the past year, 
and we have come to call this hour the ``Iraq Watch,'' where we have a 
discussion among ourselves for the benefit of those that are viewing 
our conversation through C-SPAN.
  At the very beginning, we expressed our concern that American 
credibility was at stake, as well, of course, as providing an 
opportunity to observe the competence of this White House in terms of 
its conduct of the war in Iraq. And, tragically, unfortunately, many of 
our concerns have materialized.
  I think every American remembers rather clearly the multiple 
statements, not just from the President and the Vice President, but 
from every single official representing the administration, whether 
from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, clearly from 
the White House, wherein they articulated the rationale for the 
military intervention in Iraq based on two particular concerns. One, of 
course, was expressed by the President and others when he continued to 
state that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and 
that a nuclear weapons program was underway and that at any time we 
could be faced with the vision of a mushroom cloud somewhere in the 
world, specifically in the United States.
  Well, I think there is a consensus among the American people and 
among Members of this institution, as well as a number of members of 
the administration that that particular basis for the military 
intervention in Iraq, the concern about weapons of mass destruction, 
did not materialize, and that the intelligence was faulty.
  It was the former United Nations' inspector, David Kay, who received 
plaudits and kudos and respect, and deservedly so, from Members on both 
sides of the aisle, when he was designated by this administration to 
travel to Iraq and to develop a cadre of experts to assist him in the 
discovery of where those weapons of mass destruction were located.
  I am sure many Americans remember the Secretary of Defense, Donald 
Rumsfeld, indicating that we knew where those weapons were; that they 
were around the Tikrit area and outside of Baghdad. Well, of course, 
again, that intelligence did not produce the location, and the 
statement of Mr. Kay later was that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons 
of mass destruction. In fact, he did not have a nuclear weapons 
program.
  In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he 
made a statement that was emblazoned on the front page of Newsweek 
Magazine, which has been repeated again and again, and that statement 
was: ``We were all wrong.'' ``We were all wrong.'' There was also a 
statement from a newspaper published in Great Britain that I think is 
worth repeating, and it is a statement made by David Kay. ``The former 
chief inspector warned yesterday that the United States is in grave 
danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it doesn't 
own up to the mistakes it's made in Iraq.''

                              {time}  2015

  And while there has been some acknowledgment that the weapons of mass 
destruction that purportedly existed in Iraq are not there, there never 
has been a definitive statement coming from the White House that would 
support the conclusion reached by Mr. Kay.
  In fact, the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, stated that the weapons of 
mass destruction might still be found in Iraq; and Mr. Kay's response 
was, ``What worries me about Cheney's statement is I think people will 
hold out for a hail Mary pass, delay the inevitable, looking back at 
what went wrong and believe we have enough evidence now to say that the 
intelligence process and the policy process,'' I repeat that, ``the 
policy process that used that information did not work at the level of 
effectiveness that we require in the age that we live in.''
  Well, I think all Americans, or most Americans, know that there are 
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  Of course the other most prominent rationale for the military 
intervention in Iraq was a purported relationship between Saddam 
Hussein and the terrorist organization that we all know so well, al 
Qaeda.
  In fact, in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House and the 
President of the Senate just prior to the invasion of Iraq and signed 
by the President, the President puts forth in what I would submit is 
rather clear and unequivocal terms that, ``I determine,'' this is 
President Bush, ``that reliance on the United States of further 
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately 
protect the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all 
relevant National Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and 
acting pursuant to the Constitution and the public law,'' which this 
Congress passed authorizing that military intervention, ``is consistent 
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the 
necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
organizations, including those nations,'' the clear implication being 
the nation of Iraq, ``organizations or persons who planned, authorized, 
committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
2001, the date of our national tragedy.''
  Well, recently a report was issued by the so-called 9/11 Commission, 
which was the subject of much debate and discussion over the course of 
this past weekend. I think it is important to explore in some detail 
that report and have a conversation about those allegations that were 
used by this White House as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
  Let me read from the pertinent section of the report. The report 
reviews the activities of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and now I am 
quoting from the report: ``A small group of al Qaeda operatives 
subsequently traveled to

[[Page 13216]]

Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon for training in explosives, 
intelligence, and security. Bin Laden reportedly showed particular 
interest in Hezbollah's truck bombing tactics in Lebanon in 1983 that 
killed 241 United States Marines. We have seen strong, by indirect, 
evidence that his organization did in fact play some,'' as yet unknown, 
``role in the Kobar attack.''
  Let me repeat that again for emphasis. Osama bin Laden went to Iran, 
went to Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in Lebanon.
  Now, again reading from the report, ``bin Laden also explored 
possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan,'' in Sudan, 
``despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime.'' Bin Laden in 
fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.
  The Sudanese to protect their own ties with Iraq reportedly persuaded 
bin Laden to cease the support and arrange for contacts between Iraq 
and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three 
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. This is some 3 
years after the first gulf war. Bin Laden is said to have requested 
space to establish training camps as well as assistance in procuring 
weapons but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports 
that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden 
had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in 
a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have 
adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We 
have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks 
against the United States.
  Those two senior Iraqi operatives were captured. One was captured 
last July. He was a al Anni who reportedly had a meeting with Muhammed 
Atta in the Czech Republic, in Prague, back in April 2001. Much has 
been made of that particular encounter. Both the CIA and the FBI 
concluded that that meeting never occurred. Yet we continue to hear it, 
particularly from the Vice President. He cannot let go, it would 
appear.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Would my colleague yield for just about a 5-
second question?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have heard the gentleman's arguments. I hope 
my good and dear friend from Massachusetts will stick around for my 
response to what he has said.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing his 
response. I would be happy to engage.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We are good buddies.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We are dear friends.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would like the gentleman to hear my 
response.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I look forward to that. If I am not here in the 
Chamber, that does not mean that I am not watching it on C-SPAN. But I 
can assure the gentleman we will be back here tomorrow night to respond 
to his response and correct any unintentional mistakes that he makes in 
the course of his response.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. 
This may be a breakthrough tonight. We have, through the 15 months that 
we have been handling the Iraq Watch duties on the floor, talked about 
how we would love to be joined by our Republican colleagues in a good-
faith discussion about what is happening in Iraq, to discuss the pros 
and the cons and to question one another, talk to one another about 
what is working and what is not working. I do not want to put anybody 
on the spot, but I would be delighted to have a discussion right now. I 
am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts would yield and I would yield 
time to anybody who wanted to ask a question or challenge what we might 
have said.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We can make it a 2-hour conversation. I think that 
would be informative and hopefully educational.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. This is not a challenge. It is an invitation.
  In any event, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for talking 
about the whole question of whether or not the connection exists 
between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, a connection that the Vice 
President has repeatedly invoked. At one point the President himself 
tried to straighten out the Vice President and said, wait a minute, 
there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet the Vice 
President has continued to make this accusation, even in the face of 
the 9/11 Commission staff report that suggests that there was no 
working relationship, no collaborative relationship between Saddam 
Hussein and al Qaeda.
  There is no doubt that the inability of the coalition to secure Iraq 
is a tremendous impediment to everything that we are trying to achieve. 
I certainly share the goals of President Bush in establishing a 
peaceful and stable Iraq with a representative government, hopefully a 
flourishing democracy; but that fine goal and all the yardsticks 
leading up to it cannot be achieved without security. We are going to 
have no success with reconstruction, we will not have a legitimate 
turnover of sovereignty on June 30 without security. We cannot have 
elections without security.
  I wanted to do something I have not done before during Iraq Watch, 
which we started in, I think it was, April 2003. I wanted to read a few 
words that were spoken at a rally in Los Angeles on June 5 by a young 
man named Dante Zappala. Dante's brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, a 
member of the Pennsylvania National Guard, was killed in Iraq on April 
26, 2004. I have met with Sherwood's parents, Celeste and Al Zappala. 
They gave me a copy of their other son's comments regarding Sherwood 
Baker's death. These are the words of Dante Zappala. I will have them 
entered into the Record. They are way too long to read tonight. I 
wanted to read the first paragraph and part of the last paragraph of 
these remarks. On June 5, Dante Zappala said of his brother Sherwood 
Baker:
  ``The tragedy that touches so many people in so many corners of the 
world, the tragedy of war, the tragedy of violence and sudden death, 
touched me on April 26 when my brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, was 
killed in an explosion in Baghdad. I speak today with my voice and with 
the voice of the countless others who have suffered personal loss as a 
result of this war, those many people with no microphone in front of 
them, those many people with no one to listen to their pain. As big 
brothers do, Sherwood protected me, he carried me, and he taught me.''
  Dante went on to express his frustrations with our policy in Iraq and 
then he ended his statement with the following:
  ``We do not benefit from the deaths of our soldiers, nor do we 
benefit from the deaths of the Iraqi people. To honor Sherwood, I have 
vowed to follow his path, to lift my head and go to work. Our duty is 
to spread truth. Our duty is to combat the lies, the 
misrepresentations, the fear, the mongering and the people who mean to 
ruin our belief in this country. I have made a promise to my brother 
and that is to do as he would do, to not be angry about my 
circumstances, to not let bitterness overcome my heart, but to proceed 
with hope.

                              {time}  2030

  ``Today and in the days ahead, do not let your anger carry you. Allow 
your desire to make change carry you. Allow the compassion towards 
humanity to carry you. Ride your commitment to peace. Share your soul 
with your country. Share your values with the world. Make it your 
job.''
  Mr. Speaker, I find these words remarkable. A family devastated by 
the loss of a son and brother, and yet this brother, speaking in Los 
Angeles, calling upon the better sides of our nature, calling upon all 
of us to put anger and frustration aside and to talk about compassion 
toward humanity.
  The pain that so many American families have suffered as a result of 
this war is immense. The sacrifices that the armed services have made, 
the men and women, the loss of life has been tragic. I am sure it is 
true to say that they were proud to serve and in virtually all cases 
proud to honor their country, were there because they wanted to be 
there, and made a magnificent

[[Page 13217]]

sacrifice to try to bring peace and stability to Iraq. What angers me, 
and I try to be inspired by Danta Zappala and not resort to anger, but 
what angers me, though, is the continuous reputations, he referenced 
them in his statement, the continued attempts to connect the Saddam 
Hussein regime with 9-11, a connection that is bogus, a connection that 
the gentleman just said was not made by the CIA, denied by the FBI, and 
yet the Vice President continues to want to use that nonexistent 
connection as a justification for taking us to war with half truths and 
with deceptions.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is absolutely critical 
to understand that there is no one that is unhappy with the removal of 
Saddam Hussein from power. But the question that we are posing here 
tonight is the allegation that there was a collaborative relationship 
between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein Iraqi regime. And what we are 
talking about is the credibility of the White House, the President, 
and, therefore, the United States.
  As I said earlier, we discovered what happened when it came to the 
issue of weapons of mass destruction, and here we are again, even after 
the report by the 9-11 Commission, even after a statement by David Kay, 
not only relating to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but the 
relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague has 
read anything that Lee Hamilton, the Democrat co-chairman of the 9-11 
Commission, had to say on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on June 16, 
just last week, 2004. Let me read what Lee Hamilton said: ``We have 
solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda 
going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al 
Qaeda discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since 
``Operation Enduring Freedom,'' we have solid evidence of the presence 
in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. 
And then Chairman Kean of the committee, along with Chairman Hamilton, 
said that there definitely were a number of contacts. Chairman Kean 
called these contacts shadowy, and the administration agrees with them. 
These were contacts between a deadly terrorist organization that was 
seeking support in a country that the administration knew had supported 
other terrorist operations.
  So to say that nothing was going on, I mean they did not meet to have 
tea and crumpets. They did not meet just to have an ice cream sundae.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this continuing 
conversation this evening. Again, the report refers to contacts that 
were made back in 1994. If we talk about contacts, it was the Bush 
administration, the Bush One administration, that had contacts with 
Saddam Hussein that dated back from 1982 when he was removed from the 
terrorist list, when there was an embassy installed in Baghdad, when we 
provided him with intelligence, when we provided him with the 
ingredients for weapons of mass destruction, when we transferred to 
him, when we transferred to him, dual-use technologies.
  I have a chart behind me that would establish without any doubt 
whatsoever, it is a CRS report, that in the 1980s, we had multiple 
contacts, and we should not be surprised that in 1990, it was 
discovered that he had a nuclear weapons program because it was the 
then-Bush administration and its predecessor that provided the 
components to do exactly that. The contacts that the gentleman from 
Indiana refers to occurred in 1994, and it was as a result of a request 
from the government of Sudan, where Osama bin Laden was living. The 
Iraqi official that visited Saddam Hussein heard what he had to say, 
returned to Iraq, and there was no further contact.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, since we are going back in 
history, let me just say that we had the attack on the World Trade 
Center the first time in 1993; in 1996 we had the Khobar Towers; in 
1998, we had embassy attacks in Nairobi; in 2000, we had the USS Cole, 
all during the previous administration. And during that time when Osama 
bin laden was in the Sudan, there were 13 known-terrorist training 
camps under his control, and the CIA reported those to the previous 
administration, and nothing was done about it.
  So when we start talking about this administration's being asleep at 
the switch, the fact is that President Bush, when he took over, decided 
to do something about it because there were contacts between al Qaeda 
and Saddam Hussein. Uday Hussein had one of the leaders of al Qaeda 
just last year in Baghdad for medical treatment. They had a very close 
relationship.
  So my question to my colleagues is this: Why did the previous 
administration not, when they knew there were 13 terrorist training 
camps in the Sudan, they knew that Osama bin Laden was there, they knew 
that the CIA had talked about it and said let us go in and get him, and 
they did not do a doggone thing after all these attacks on U.S. 
installations?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I will give the gentleman a nonanswer 
answer. The nonanswer is we could pose another question, which is why 
did the first President Bush not go in and eliminate Saddam Hussein 
when he had that information as well? And that is an interesting 
historical issue, but it is one that is not pertinent to why I came 
here tonight, and I would like to address that issue.
  I think the issue is that Congress has a responsibility to fulfill 
now, which is to hold the administration accountable if, in fact, it 
created a false impression in the American people. And this is an 
interesting academic issue, whether it was contacts or collaboration or 
something more, but the bottom line is the President enjoyed some 
popular support for this war based on two pillars: the first pillar 
being his assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and 
that has now by and large been shown to be a falsehood; and the second 
pillar was that Saddam Hussein was responsible for killing over 2,000 
Americans on September 11.
  And that was the impression that this President created. In fact, in 
a poll taken in September, 2003, 69 percent of Americans said they 
believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks.
  Here is the question I have, and then I will answer it: Where did 69 
percent of the American people get the impression that Saddam Hussein 
was personally involved in the attacks of September 11? Did they get it 
from just reading The New York Times? I do not think so. Did they get 
it just watching Dan Rather? I do not think so. Did they get it from 
reading the penny press at home? I do not think so. They got it from 
President George Bush, who did everything possible to create the 
impression that Iraq was associated with the attack, an ally, in the 
attack of September 11.
  Why do I say that? Because that is the language President Bush used. 
On May 1, 2003, he said: ``The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance 
in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and 
cut off a source of terrorist funding.''
  The interesting thing that I challenge anyone to show me, the 
September 11 Commission reached what appears to me to be a factual 
conclusion. It appears to me to be the most rational conclusion I think 
we can make on the evidence we have. They said: ``We have no credible 
evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the 
United States.'' That is what they said. I believe that is most likely 
to be true.
  When did President George Bush ever say we have no credible evidence 
that al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States? When the 
President of the United States was urging another war, a preemptive 
attack on another country, without significant

[[Page 13218]]

international assistance, and when he would believe that if a 
misimpression was created by the American public, it could lead to the 
wrong conclusion, did this President come forward and say the truth, 
which was there may have been some contacts, some discussions, between 
al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's agents, they were way back in 1994, there 
was no active collaboration that took place, but I want to make sure 
the American people understand this one central tenet, because I want 
to make sure there is no confusion here: As far as we know, Saddam 
Hussein was not behind the attacks on September 11, and I do not want 
anybody starting a war based on this false impression.
  Did the President of the United States ever level with the American 
people and say that? No, he did not. This was an impression that he 
knew he was creating. If the Members would go see the movie the ``Flim-
Flam Man,'' starring George C. Scott, it was about a great guy who 
understood how to create impressions to get people to take action. And 
there was an impression created that Iraq was responsible for the 
deaths of over 2,000 Americans. And it is most unfortunate.
  The reason we have come here tonight is to talk about the fact that 
it is unhealthy for a democracy, for a President to create false 
impressions that end in war, and this President created two massive 
false impressions. One that this demonic monster, Saddam Hussein, who 
we all agree on a bipartisan basis is a demonic monster, had weapons of 
mass destruction and that we were threatened with a mushroom cloud; and 
the second, he allowed 69 percent of the Americans to believe that 
Saddam was the one who attacked us, and that is an undemocratic action, 
and it is wrong, and he ought to be held accountable for it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could, because I want to respond to 
my friend from Indiana, because I know that he holds in high regard 
David Kay, who was selected by the administration to go to Iraq and 
review the various assertions and the concerns that they had about 
weapons of mass destruction as well as a relationship between Saddam 
Hussein and al Qaeda, and this is a statement that appeared today in 
fact in The Boston Globe and it quotes David Kay: ``'At various times 
al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,' 
said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq survey group, which 
searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, 
'but we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with al 
Qaeda or, for that matter, any real links at all.'''

                              {time}  2045

  He was referencing the statement by the Vice President. Again, 
``Cheney's speech is evidence-free,'' Kay said. ``It is an assertion, 
but does not say why we should believe this now.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I wanted to thank our friend from Indiana for jumping into this 
discussion. We have been looking for some bipartisan debate back and 
forth; and the gentleman, if nothing else, has the courage of his 
convictions; and we welcome him here tonight.
  I wanted to respond to a couple things the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) said. I think he said that we were suggesting George Bush 
has been asleep at the switch in Iraq. That is not at all what we have 
been suggesting here. President Bush has been anything but asleep at 
the switch. He has been very aggressive regarding Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may reclaim my time, the reality is that this 
administration, a week after the inauguration, according to a very fine 
Republican by the name of Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the 
Treasury, had an extensive discussion about Iraq at the first meeting 
of the National Security Council and why it should be targeted.
  I have a long list of quotes from administration officials and others 
that were there that can provide firsthand evidence. What I found 
particularly disturbing, however, according to Paul O'Neill, a good, 
fine, conservative Republican who was the CEO of a fine American 
corporation called Alcoa, was that on February 27, months before 9/11, 
at a National Security Council meeting, there was a map laid out; and 
there was a discussion among the principals about how the oil fields in 
Iraq would be divvied up between nations and between various 
corporations. I commend to my friend, and I know he must have a copy of 
that book, it is called ``The Price of Loyalty.''
  On page 96, I will not bore him and those who are watching us here 
tonight with reading it, but I believe somebody owes the American 
people and this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, an explanation of 
why months before 
9/11, months before 9/11, months before there was any discussion about 
weapons of mass destruction or links, if you will, between al Qaeda and 
Saddam Hussein, we are talking about war.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield briefly, 
Condoleezza Rice, the Vice President and a whole host of National 
Security Council members were at that meeting. The gentleman to whom 
you are referring is sour grapes because he lost his job as Secretary 
of the Treasury. Their interpretation and their recall of that meeting 
does not jibe with that at all. That is his singular opinion.
  So let me just say that one person's comment at a meeting does not 
make it so.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I would remind my friend from Indiana of the 11th 
amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What is that?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That Republicans do not criticize Republicans. I will 
have to defend Paul O'Neill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is the gentleman's prerogative.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, because we have a good discussion going here 
tonight, I think it is important for all those that are watching, 
because we will chew right into our friend's time too, I think it is 
important here tonight that the American people understand that this is 
good discourse. This is the kind of debate that this institution needs.
  Despite the fact that we have disparate views and profound 
disagreements, the reality is that we do have mutual respect, and in 
the case of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) we have affection.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I think the gentleman from Indiana missed that last 
comment. You might want to repeat it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to repeat the praise I gave to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Only once he gets the kudos.
  While the gentleman might disagree with Paul O'Neill, the former 
Secretary of the Treasury who was appointed, obviously, by this 
President, I wonder if he disagrees with an observation or an anecdote 
that was related by Bob Woodward just recently in the book that is on, 
I understand, the President's Web site, where, again, I am quoting from 
the book. I do not want in any way to infer that this is coming from me 
or any of my Democratic colleagues.
  But in response to this desire for war against Iraq, Bob Woodward 
writes, ``Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The Vice President 
and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Hussein and 
September 11th. It was a separate little government that was out there. 
Wolfowitz, Libby, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Feith's 
gestapo office, as Powell privately called it. Cheney now had an 
unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to 
al Qaeda and trying to nail down the connection with Iraq. He would 
often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that 
Cheney,'' Powell not, not O'Neill, ``took intelligence and converted 
uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. A conversation would suggest 
something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a we 
know. Powell,'' not O'Neill, ``Powell concluded we didn't know and no 
one knew.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

[[Page 13219]]


  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could prevail upon my 
good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who, I might say 
this evening is in sartorial splendor, as well as a good friend, if we 
might prevail upon him to maybe come back at another time when we can 
have a conversation on this, because it is vital to America's 
interests.
  I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has spent his entire 
congressional career addressing precisely that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be 
happy to do that, if you ever give me some macadamia nuts.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will be happy to do that.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, back to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), I just wanted to respond finally 
to the gentleman's suggestion that the prior administration, the 
Clinton administration, had not done enough after several acts of 
terror against this country.
  The act of terror on 9/11 did change the thinking of a lot of people. 
But if you will recall, in August of 1998, President Clinton did order 
cruise missile strikes in Sudan as a result of some of the acts of 
terror; and the Republican opponents in the Congress of the President 
at that time did not accuse him of doing too little; they accused him 
of doing too much. There was a great partisan uproar that President 
Clinton was trying to distract the public from his impeachment woes 
with the use of American military power.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let 
me just say according to most news reports that was not a factory for 
weapons of mass destruction, as was anticipated, it was an aspirin 
factory; and there was no reason for it. There were a lot of people, 
including the media, that thought it was a ``wag the tail'' type of 
attack.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I would say to the gentleman that the fact is the 
Republican opposition at that time was in full throat, and the 
criticism was not that he should be doing more; but that he was doing 
too much, in the view of his critics.
  I raise the point in good faith. I was not in the Congress then, and 
the gentleman may or may not have been involved at that point at that 
time. It shows you when there is too much partisanship I think that it 
clouds the judgment. It probably affected President Clinton. He 
probably did not think he could have congressional support if he took 
more action at that time. I do not know.
  I would suggest that there is a time when the level of partisanship 
can rise so high that it can cloud the judgment of the government to 
act in a concerted way. I do not want to see that happen.
  There is a lot of frustration about Iraq and a lot of opposition to 
what many of us think are the deceptions and the half-truths that have 
been used. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) came today 
to try to talk about that, and I welcome the bipartisan discussion 
tonight; but we have got to try to get past the bipartisan anger.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I think what is important here then to get across this evening 
is that calling people to account is what we do. The oversight function 
of the Congress has a long history. I can go back to the time in which 
some people wonder how Harry Truman got to be chosen as Vice President 
of the United States just prior to Franklin Roosevelt's death, before 
his last campaign. Of course, he had made his reputation on an 
oversight committee in the Senate looking into war profiteering, is 
what he had done, trying to hold people to account. That is what this 
is all about.
  If someone wants to take up the position that this is a concentration 
on President Bush for partisan activity, he is the President. He is 
making the decisions, and those decisions are subject to scrutiny.
  As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very well knows, back at 
the time when Mr. Clinton made decisions about Bosnia and Kosovo, I 
found myself in opposition to him and said so. I think at least as far 
as this Member is concerned, I do not have to take a back seat to 
anybody in trying to bring anybody to account in the executive, 
Democrat or Republican, if I think that is in order.
  If I know my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), well, 
and I think I do, he does not stand for anybody telling him who should 
be brought to account either. He has stood up on more than one 
occasion, perhaps even singularly, calling for an accounting on various 
issues. I think that is his function and our function, and that is what 
this Iraq Watch is all about, I can guarantee you that. If we think 
somebody is doing the right thing, we are going to say so; if we think 
somebody is not acting necessarily in the best interests of the United 
States, regardless of what their motivation might be, it is up to us to 
say so and engage in a dialogue to try to illuminate where the 
interests of the American people are.
  I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) agrees with that, 
and I look forward to any discussion we might have in the future along 
those lines.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is 
important to note that. Again, I am not sure about whether it was an 
aspirin factory, but I think what is really important is the point that 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) just made about oversight.
  It is clear that there are no weapons of mass destruction. It is 
clear that the kind of relationship that has been suggested by the 
administration, particularly the Vice President and the President, does 
not exist. It is, I dare say, hurting our credibility.
  We come to this as Americans. You know that, I know that, and we all 
know that. And this information comes from a variety of sources, 
whether it be from Bob Woodward, who describes a conversation that 
Secretary Powell has, or whether it is Paul O'Neill.
  In the case of Richard Clarke, the terrorist chief, in the aftermath 
of 9/11, he writes in his book he expected the administration to focus 
its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was 
surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq. ``Rumsfeld was saying 
that we needed to bomb Iraq,'' Clark said, ``and we all said no, no. Al 
Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld 
said, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are a lot 
of good targets in Iraq.
  ``Well, there are a lot of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq 
had nothing to do with 9/11. Initially I thought when he said there are 
not enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking. They wanted 
to believe there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting at that 
particular meeting, and the FBI was sitting there, and I was sitting 
there, and we looked at the issue for years, and we reached a 
conclusion that there was no connection.''
  The point is, let it go. To follow the admonition of David Kay, it is 
time to acknowledge our mistakes as a Nation and to begin to restore 
some of our credibility internationally.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I want to 
pose a important question to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) if 
he could help us out.
  My comment is on the difference between connection and action and 
collaboration. I do not think there is any question that there had been 
some communication between al-Qaeda and some Iraqi officials. I think 
we all agree on that, and have for a long period of time. The September 
11 Commission reported that back in 1994, bin Laden had essentially 
asked for help from Iraq but Iraq said no deal. We are not going to 
help you.
  And from that, the September 11 Commission concluded, a bipartisan 
commission concluded there had been no collaboration and there had been 
no active work between the two. In fact, the two highest bin Laden 
associates we have in custody have adamantly denied that any ties 
existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

[[Page 13220]]

  I think an accurate picture that has been stated is that there were 
some contacts and that bin Laden had asked for help and Iraq had 
refused to give him help. And yet the President started this war. Now, 
the question I have is what was the President trying to do in this 
conversation with the American people? It appears to me that he was 
trying to create an impression in the American people that Iraq was 
behind the attack of September 11. Let me give you just one quote that 
fits into that impression. On September 14, 2003, Vice President Cheney 
said ``If we are successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major 
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base 
of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but 
most especially on 9/11.''
  That is just one of hundreds of statements made by this 
administration that to me was responsible for creating an impression in 
at least 69 percent of the American people that Iraq was behind it and 
that this was pay-back time. In fact, I remember seeing a tank as it 
entered Baghdad with it was lettered on the side ``pay back time.'' And 
I can understand why soldiers felt that way if the President of the 
United States was creating an impression that Iraq was responsible for 
September 11.
  It was not an impression that led this country to war that bin Laden 
had asked for help, but Iraq had said no, that is not the salient 
feature that led to this war. What led to this war was the President 
succeeding in creating an impression in America that Iraq was behind 
this venous and evil attack against us on September 11.
  So the question to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) if I can 
ask him, just kind of two questions, does he share my view that 
probably a majority of Americans had the impression as the result of 
its Federal Government's dissemination of information, the 
administration, that Iraq was behind in some fashion, or associated 
with the attack on September 11?
  And if that is true, does he think the President of the United States 
did enough to be candid with the American people to tell the American 
people that no, we do not have any evidence of collaboration resulting 
in the attack of September 11. Sincere question.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the 
President went to war with Iraq because of two reasons: One, weapons of 
mass destruction; and two, the threat to security in the Middle East 
and the United States of America, and because there were indications of 
a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And there is 
documentation even stated in the 9/11 Commission report or in the 9/11 
Commission statement.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if one reviews the 9/
11 report, they are very clear that there were more connections, more 
connections between Lebanon, between Iran and al-Qaeda than there ever 
were between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, in fact, Osama bin 
Laden, in 1990 right after the invasion of Kuwait, went to Saudi Arabia 
and met with Prince Sultan, who was the defense minister and said that 
we have to do something about that secularist. Let us join forces and 
destroy Saddam Hussein. He considered Saddam Hussein as an apostate, a 
corrupter of Islam.
  The point is, and again, another report that came out today, Chairman 
Kean, again suggests that the connections between Pakistan, between 
Iran and Hezbollah, far exceeded the connections between Saddam Hussein 
and al-Qaeda. There was no collaborative relationship. We continued to 
hear about al-Qaeda bases in Iraq. They were in northern Iraq under the 
protection of the no-fly zone.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  All this points up to the fact that this is ideologically driven. 
This has nothing to do with those facts. This is ideologically driven 
by people who are generally termed neoconservative. I am the 
conservative here. And my colleague should be the conservative here. He 
is conservative. It is the conservative position not to get trapped in 
these foreign conflicts, not to go off charging around the world to try 
and do these things.
  The ideology behind this is that Iraq was the key to being able to 
move into Syria, being able to move into Iran, that this is somehow a 
defense of the Likud version of what is in Israel's interest. The so-
called neoconservatives that are behind this ideological thrust have 
wanted this war for years. It is not hidden. It is not a conspiracy. It 
is not some kind of subterfuge. It is an announced policy and 
possession philosophically they have had for years.
  The sad part is after Mr. Bush became President, was appointed 
President, they came into the forefront in terms of their appointments 
in the Defense Department where they were able to bring their 
philosophy forward. That is what is driving this. That is what the 
President has to face up to. This is where his difficulty is.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know we have very limited time left. But 
I think before we go we should wish a happy birthday to our friend and 
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Burton), because it is his 45th birthday 
today, is that correct?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 29.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. 29th birthday today, I think this has been a very good 
discussion. We really do welcome this conversation with my colleague. 
He knows we have respect.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have more of these.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I hope we do, too. I would issue a challenge to my 
friend because he and I have traveled together and it is an experience, 
and it is a very positive experience, but there are people that are in 
the custody of the executive branch, those so-called senior 
intelligence Iraqi agents, that continually deny any knowledge 
whatsoever of Iraq or meeting the gentleman that allegedly met with 
Mohammed Atta in Prague in the Czech Republic, is in our custody.
  Let us challenge together the executive branch and my colleague, 
myself, and anyone else who wishes to join us, go together and exercise 
the oversight responsibility and function of this Congress and 
interview Mr. Al-Ani and make that decision ourselves and come back and 
report to the American people.

                          ____________________